26th May 2006, 03:31 PM
Quote:quote:as to money and who organises.. I would be happy to put up funding if Paul organisises it... Afer all the aim of us all is to preserve that which we can preserve and record that which we can't, to seek out new sites and new civilisations and to boldly...er hang on....
I trust the irony of this statement will not be lost on all those who have been involved in the farce that has befallen Ladybridge...
We had the chance to 'record that which we can't' by excavating the entire area in advance of quarrying, which (regardless as to the rights and wrongs of the quarry) would have preserevd the archaeology by record ( it has long been known that it was being ploughed aweay in this area, before any glass experiments were carried out to prove the obvious).
That chance was not taken - due in part to the opposition of some archaeologists, who didn't seem to realise that they were condemning the remains in this area to the slow death of the plough. Unfortunately Host you have ended up in the position of having opposed the chance to excavate properly (by opposing the quarry) and now having to suggest fieldwalking (think I am right in saying that the area has been done twice already) and metaldetecting (of dubious value for lithic scatters and pottery!).
If the remains are too important to allow development (EHs position) then they are certainly too important to be recorded by the wholly inadequate means of non-intrusive methods alone (I assume you are not offering to fund full open area excavation?!).